Effects of Vildagliptin on Ventricular Function in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Heart Failure: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to examine the safety of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, vildagliptin, in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. BACKGROUND: Many patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus have heart failure and it is important to know about the safety of new treatments for diabetes in these individuals. METHODS: Patients 18 to 85 years of age with type 2 diabetes and heart failure (New York Heart Association functional class I to III and left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] <0.40) were randomized to 52 weeks treatment with vildagliptin 50 mg twice daily (50 mg once daily if treated with a sulfonylurea) or matching placebo. The primary endpoint was between-treatment change from baseline in echocardiographic LVEF using a noninferiority margin of -3.5%. RESULTS: A total of 254 patients were randomly assigned to vildagliptin (n = 128) or placebo (n = 126). Baseline LVEF was 30.6 ± 6.8% in the vildagliptin group and 29.6 ± 7.7% in the placebo group. The adjusted mean change in LVEF was 4.95 ± 1.25% in vildagliptin treated patients and 4.33 ± 1.23% in placebo treated patients, a difference of 0.62 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -2.21 to 3.44; p = 0.667). This difference met the predefined noninferiority margin of -3.5%. Left ventricular end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes increased more in the vildagliptin group by 17.1 ml (95% CI: 4.6 to 29.5 ml; p = 0.007) and 9.4 ml (95% CI: -0.49 to 19.4 ml; p = 0.062), respectively. Decrease in hemoglobin A1c from baseline to 16 weeks, the main secondary endpoint, was greater in the vildagliptin group: -0.62% (95% CI: -0.93 to -0.30%; p < 0.001; -6.8 mmol/mol; 95% CI: -10.2 to -3.3 mmol/mol). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with placebo, vildagliptin had no major effect on LVEF but did lead to an increase in left ventricular volumes, the cause and clinical significance of which is unknown. More evidence is needed regarding the safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in patients with heart failure and left ventricular systolic dysfunction. (Effect of Vildagliptin on Left Ventricular Function in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Congestive Heart Failure; NCT00894868).

Effect of race and ethnicity on vildagliptin efficacy: A pooled analysis of phase II and III studies.

AIMS: To determine the impact of race and ethnicity on the efficacy, body weight and hypoglycaemia incidence with vildagliptin treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus using patient-level data from the vildagliptin clinical trial programme. METHODS: Data from 22 randomized, placebo-controlled global and local (Japan, China) registration studies of vildagliptin (50 mg once-daily or twice-daily) of ≥12-week duration were analysed by race (Caucasian [n = 2764] and Asian [n = 2232]) and by ethnicity (Japanese, Chinese, and Indian). The placebo-subtracted differences in the change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight from baseline to week 12 or week 24 were evaluated by race or ethnicity using repeated measure analysis of unstructured covariance. Hypoglycaemia incidences were summarized using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: The HbA1c reduction from baseline with vildagliptin was similar across the racial/ethnic subgroups (-0.83% ± 0.02% to -1.01% ± 0.05%). Placebo-corrected HbA1c reduction was similar between Caucasian (-0.68% ± 0.03%) and Asian (-0.80% ± 0.03%) patients ( P value for interaction = .56); analysis by race and ethnicity showed better efficacy ( P < .02) in Japanese patients. Japanese patients were drug-naïve and treated with a single oral anti-diabetes drug only; they showed no response to placebo. Weight neutrality of vildagliptin was demonstrated in all groups (0.47 ± 0.11 kg to -0.29 ± 0.08 kg). Hypoglycaemic events (≥1) were infrequent in all ethnic subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: The glycaemic efficacy of vildagliptin was similar in Caucasian and Asian patients. The slightly better efficacy observed in Japanese patients was driven by the absence of placebo effect and might be explained by their earlier stage of diabetes compared to other subgroups.

Vildagliptin as add-on therapy to insulin improves glycemic control without increasing risk of hypoglycemia in Asian, predominantly Chinese, patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of vildagliptin added onto insulin with or without metformin in an Asian, predominantly Chinese, population with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: In this 24-week, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, patients with T2DM inadequately controlled (HbA1c 7.5%-11.0%) on stable therapy with long-acting, intermediate-acting, or premixed insulin, with or without concomitant metformin, were randomized to receive vildagliptin 50 mg b.i.d. or placebo. RESULTS: Of 293 patients randomized, 146 received vildagliptin and 147 received placebo treatment. At baseline, the overall mean age of patients was 58.1 years, mean T2DM duration was 11.3 years, and mean HbA1c was 8.7%. The adjusted mean (±SE) change in HbA1c at Week 24 in the vildagliptin and placebo groups was -1.08 ± 0.12% and -0.38 ± 0.12%, respectively (between-treatment difference -0.70 ± 0.16%; P < 0.001). The between-group difference in fasting plasma glucose was -0.43 ± 0.38 mmol/L (P = 0.259). Significantly, more patients achieved HbA1c <7.0% with vildagliptin than with placebo (23.6% vs. 11.2%; P = 0.006). The incidence of adverse events in the vildagliptin and placebo groups was 43.8% and 46.3%, whereas that of serious adverse events was 3.4% and 6.8%, respectively. The frequency of hypoglycemia was lower in the vildagliptin than placebo group (2.7% vs. 5.4%). CONCLUSION: The addition of vildagliptin 50 mg b.i.d. significantly improved glycemic control without an increased risk of hypoglycemia in Asian, predominantly Chinese, patients with T2DM inadequately controlled on insulin, with or without metformin.

Comparison of vildagliptin and sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes and severe renal impairment: a randomised clinical trial.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: There are limited data comparing dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors directly. We compared the safety and efficacy of vildagliptin and sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes and severe renal impairment (RI). METHODS: This study was a parallel-arm, randomised, multicentre, double-blind, 24 week study conducted in 87 centres across Brazil and the USA. Patients with type 2 diabetes, either drug naive or treated with any glucose-lowering agents, who had inadequate glycaemic control (HbA1c 6.5-10.0% [48-86 mmol/mol]) and an estimated GFR <30 ml min(-1) [1.73 m](-2) were randomised (via interactive voice response technology) to vildagliptin 50 mg once daily or sitagliptin 25 mg once daily. These doses are recommended in this patient population and considered maximally effective. Participants, investigators and the sponsor were blinded to group assignment. Efficacy endpoints included change in HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) at all visits and the primary safety endpoint was assessment of treatment-emergent adverse events. RESULTS: In total, 148 patients were randomised, 83 to vildagliptin and 65 to sitagliptin. All patients were analysed. After 24 weeks, the adjusted mean change in HbA1c was -0.54% (5.9 mmol/mol) from a baseline of 7.52% (59 mmol/mol) with vildagliptin and -0.56% (6.1 mmol/mol) from a baseline of 7.80% (62 mmol/mol) with sitagliptin (p = 0.874). FPG decreased by 0.47 ± 0.37 mmol/l with vildagliptin and increased by 0.16 ± 0.43 mmol/l with sitagliptin (p = 0.185). Both treatments were well tolerated with overall similar safety profiles. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: At their recommended doses for severe RI, vildagliptin (50 mg once daily) compared with sitagliptin (25 mg once daily) demonstrated similar efficacy and both drugs were well tolerated. This study provides further support for the use of DPP-4 inhibitors in patients with severe RI. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00616811 (completed) FUNDING: This study was planned and conducted by Novartis.

Efficacy and safety of a single-pill combination of vildagliptin and metformin in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: The use of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in combination with metformin is increasing in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), but no single-pill combination (SPC) is currently available in Japan. The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of vildagliptin/metformin SPC in Japanese patients with T2DM inadequately controlled with vildagliptin monotherapy. METHODS: This was a 14-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial. 171 patients with T2DM inadequately controlled [HbA1c (glycosylated hemoglobin) 7.0-10.0%] with vildagliptin 50 mg twice daily (bid) were randomized (2:1) to receive either a vildagliptin/metformin SPC (n = 115) or matching vildagliptin/placebo SPC (n = 56). RESULTS: Baseline demographics and background characteristics were generally comparable between the treatment groups. The change in HbA1c [mean ± standard error (SE)] was -0.8 ± 0.1% in the vildagliptin/metformin SPC (baseline HbA1c, 7.9 ± 0.1%) group and 0.1 ± 0.1% in the vildagliptin/placebo SPC (baseline HbA1c, 8.0 ± 0.1%) group, with a between-treatment difference of -1.0 ± 0.1% (P <0.001) in favor of the vildagliptin/metformin SPC group. The proportion of patients achieving target HbA1c <7.0% was significantly higher with vildagliptin/metformin SPC compared with vildagliptin/placebo SPC (45.8% vs. 13.5%, P <0.001). The overall incidences of adverse events (AEs) were 43.5% in the vildagliptin/metformin SPC and 67.9% in the vildagliptin/placebo SPC group. The incidences of serious AEs were low in both the treatment groups (0.9% vs. 3.6%, respectively). Body weight remained constant throughout the study in both the treatment groups. There were no deaths or hypoglycemic events during the study. CONCLUSIONS: Switching Japanese patients with T2DM requiring treatment intensification, from vildagliptin monotherapy to a vildagliptin/metformin SPC (50/250 or 50/500 mg) was efficacious and safe, eliciting significant reduction in HbA1c without increased risk of hypoglycemia and weight gain.

Vildagliptin added to sulfonylurea improves glycemic control without hypoglycemia and weight gain in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to assess the efficacy and safety of vildagliptin as add-on to sulfonylurea therapy in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately controlled on sulfonylurea monotherapy. METHODS: The 24-week randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study compared vildagliptin 50 mg, q.d., with placebo as add-on to glimepiride in T2DM patients who were inadequately controlled (HbA1c 7.5%-11.0% [58-97 mmol/mol]) on a stable dose of sulfonylurea for ≥12 weeks before study entry. RESULTS: In all, 279 patients were randomized to receive either vildagliptin (n = 143) or placebo (n = 136). At baseline, overall mean age was 58.5 years, body weight 68.1 kg, duration of diabetes 6.9 years and daily glimepiride dose 3.3 mg. After 24 weeks, the adjusted mean change (AMΔ) in HbA1c was -0.7% (-8 mmol/mol; baseline 8.6%, 70 mmol/mol) in the vildagliptin group and -0.2% (-2 mmol/mol; baseline 8.7%, 72 mmol/mol) in the placebo group, with a treatment difference of -0.5% (-5 mmol/mol; P < 0.001). The between-group difference in AMΔ in fasting plasma glucose was -0.4 mmol/L (P = 0.160). There was a slight, but not significant, decrease in body weight in both groups. No hypoglycemic events were reported in either group, including those patients reaching HbA1c <7.0%. Patients in the vildagliptin and placebo groups reported low and comparable incidences of adverse events (14.0% vs. 17.8%) and serious adverse events (0.7% in each group). CONCLUSION: Vildagliptin 50 mg, q.d., added to sulfonylurea monotherapy is effective in Chinese patients with T2DM, without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia and weight gain.

Vildagliptin-insulin combination improves glycemic control in Asians with type 2 diabetes.

AIM: To assess the efficacy and safety of vildagliptin 50 mg bid as add-on therapy to insulin in Asian patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of a subgroup of Asian patients from a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study in T2DM patients inadequately controlled by stable insulin therapy, with or without metformin. A total of 173 patients were randomized 1:1 to receive treatment with vildagliptin 50 mg bid (n = 87) or placebo (n = 86) for 24 wk. Changes in HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose (FPG), from baseline to study endpoint, were analyzed using an analysis of covariance model. Change from baseline to endpoint in body weight was summarized by treatment. Safety and tolerability of vildagliptin was also evaluated. RESULTS: After 24 wk, the difference in adjusted mean change in HbA1c between vildagliptin and placebo was 0.82% (8.96 mmol/mol; P < 0.001) in Asian subgroup, 0.85% (9.29 mmol/mol; P < 0.001) in patients also receiving metformin, and 0.73% (7.98 mmol/mol; P < 0.001) in patients without metformin, all in favor of vildagliptin. There was no significant difference in the change in FPG between treatments. Weight was stable in both treatment groups (+0.3 kg and -0.2 kg, for vildagliptin and placebo, respectively). Overall, vildagliptin was safe and well tolerated with similarly low incidences of hypoglycemia (8.0% vs 8.1%) and no severe hypoglycemic events were experienced in either group. CONCLUSION: In Asian patients inadequately controlled with insulin (with or without concomitant metformin), insulin-vildagliptin combination treatment significantly reduced HbA1c compared with placebo, without an increase in risk of hypoglycemia or weight gain.

Individualised treatment targets for elderly patients with type 2 diabetes using vildagliptin add-on or lone therapy (INTERVAL): a 24 week, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines suggest setting individualised targets for glycaemic control in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes, despite no evidence. We aimed to assess the feasibility of setting and achieving individualised targets over 24 weeks along with conventional HbA1c reduction using vildagliptin versus placebo. METHODS: In this multinational, double-blind, 24 week study, we enrolled drug-naive or inadequately controlled (glycosylated haemoglobin A1c [HbA1c] ≥7·0% to ≤10·0%) patients with type 2 diabetes aged 70 years or older from 45 outpatient centres in Europe. Investigators set individualised treatment targets on the basis of age, baseline HbA1c, comorbidities, and frailty status before a validated automated system randomly assigned patients (1:1) to vildagliptin (50 mg once or twice daily as per label) or placebo. Coprimary efficacy endpoints were proportion of patients reaching their investigator-defined HbA1c target and HbA1c reduction from baseline to study end. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01257451, and European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials database, number 2010-022658-18. FINDINGS: Between Dec 22, 2010, and March 14, 2012, we randomly assigned 139 patients each to the vildagliptin and placebo groups. 37 (27%) of 137 patients in the placebo group achieved their individualised targets by education and interactions with the study team alone and 72 (52·6%) of 137 patients achieved their target in the vildagliptin group (adjusted odds ratio 3·16, 96·2% CI 1·81-5·52; p<0·0001). This finding was accompanied by a clinically relevant 0·9% reduction in HbA1c from a baseline of 7·9% with vildagliptin and a between-group difference of -0·6% (98·8% CI -0·81 to -0·33; p<0·0001). The overall safety and tolerability was similar in the vildagliptin and placebo groups, with low incidence of hypoglycaemia and no emergence of new safety signals. INTERPRETATION: This study is the first to introduce and show the feasibility of using individualised HbA1c targets as an endpoint in any type 2 diabetes population. Individualised glycaemic target levels are achievable with vildagliptin without any tolerability issues in the elderly type 2 diabetes population. FUNDING: Novartis Pharma AG.

Efficacy of vildagliptin in combination with insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes and severe renal impairment.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of vildagliptin 50 mg once daily in patients with severe renal impairment (estimated glomerular filtration rate < 30 mL/min/1.73 m(2)) and longstanding type 2 diabetes not adequately controlled with insulin therapy, which is a difficult-to-treat population, with limited therapeutic options and a high susceptibility to hypoglycemia. METHODS: This was a post hoc subanalysis of data obtained during a previously described randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, 24-week study comparing the efficacy and safety of vildagliptin 50 mg once daily versus placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes and moderate or severe renal impairment. The present data derive from 178 patients with severe renal impairment (baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate approximately 21 mL/min/1.73 m(2), 100 randomized to vildagliptin, 78 randomized to placebo), all of whom were receiving insulin therapy (alone or in combination with an oral antidiabetic agent) for longstanding type 2 diabetes (mean approximately 19 years). RESULTS: With vildagliptin in combination with insulin, the adjusted mean change (AMΔ) in HbA(1c) from baseline (7.7% ± 0.1%) was -0.9% ± 0.4% and the between-treatment difference (vildagliptin - placebo) was -0.6% ± 0.2% (P < 0.001). The percentage of patients achieving endpoint HbA(1c) < 7.0% was significantly higher with vildagliptin than placebo (45.2% versus 22.8%, P = 0.008). When added to insulin, vildagliptin and placebo had comparable hypoglycemic profiles and did not cause weight gain. Both treatments were similarly well tolerated, with comparable incidences of adverse events, serious adverse events, and deaths. CONCLUSION: When added to insulin therapy in patients with severe renal impairment and longstanding type 2 diabetes, vildagliptin 50 mg once daily was efficacious, eliciting HbA(1c) reductions consistent with those previously reported for a patient population with much more recent onset of type 2 diabetes and normal renal function, and had a hypoglycemic profile comparable with placebo. Accordingly, vildagliptin is a suitable treatment option for patients with advanced type 2 diabetes and impaired renal function who require insulin therapy and present a serious therapeutic challenge in clinical practice.

Suppression of aldosterone mediates regression of left ventricular hypertrophy in patients with hypertension.

BACKGROUND: High circulating aldosterone levels stimulate myocardial fibrosis and left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH). However, it is not clear whether suppression of aldosterone directly contributes to LVH regression in hypertensive patients. METHODS: The Aliskiren in Left Ventricular Hypertrophy (ALLAY) trial randomised 465 hypertensive overweight subjects with LVH to the direct renin inhibitor aliskiren 300 mg, losartan 100 mg or the combination and followed patients for 9 months. All patients were treated to standard blood pressure targets. Left ventricular (LV) mass index (LVMI) and LV wall thickness (LVWT) were assessed by cardiac magnetic resonance. A subset of 136 patients who had plasma aldosterone concentration (ALDO) measured at baseline and study end was analysed. RESULTS: At baseline, plasma ALDO was modestly related to systolic blood pressure, LVMI, and wall thickness (all, p < 0.05). Aliskiren, either alone or in combination, was associated with a significantly greater reduction from baseline to 9 months in plasma aldosterone than losartan alone (p < 0.02). Reduction in ALDO was related to reduction in LVMI even after adjustment for baseline ALDO, BP reduction and treatment group (p for trend = 0.042). CONCLUSION: In hypertensive patients with increased LVWT, aliskiren alone or in combination with the angiotensin receptor blocker losartan provides greater reduction in aldosterone compared to losartan alone. Moreover, suppression of aldosterone was associated with reduction of LVH, independently of the change in SBP, suggesting that suppression of aldosterone, a known mediator of LVH, may be particularly important for LVH regression and as a target for therapy.

Patients with acute coronary syndromes and elevated levels of natriuretic peptides: the results of the AVANT GARDE-TIMI 43 Trial.

AIMS: Elevated natriuretic peptides (NPs) are associated with an increased cardiovascular risk following acute coronary syndromes (ACSs). However, the therapeutic implications are still undefined. We hypothesized that early inhibition of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) in patients with preserved left ventricular function but elevated NPs but following ACS would reduce haemodynamic stress as reflected by a greater reduction NP compared with placebo. METHODS AND RESULTS: AVANT GARDE-TIMI 43 trial, a multinational, double-blind trial, randomized 1101 patients stabilized after ACS without clinical evidence of heart failure or left ventricular function

Comparative efficacy of aliskiren monotherapy and ramipril monotherapy in patients with stage 2 systolic hypertension: subgroup analysis of a double-blind, active comparator trial.

Aliskiren is the first direct renin inhibitor approved for the treatment of hypertension. Blood pressure (BP) control in stage 2 hypertension with aliskiren monotherapy has not been reported. This was a post hoc analysis of the subgroup of patients with stage 2 systolic hypertension (baseline mean sitting systolic BP [msSBP]≥160 mmHg) who completed the 12-week monotherapy phase of a 6-month, double-blind, randomized study. A total of 175 patients were randomized to aliskiren 150 mg (n = 88) or ramipril 5 mg (n = 87) with optional up-titration to aliskiren 300 mg or ramipril 10 mg, respectively, at weeks 6 and 12. In the subgroup of patients with stage 2 systolic hypertension, aliskiren lowered msSBP and mean sitting diastolic BP (msDBP) by 22.3/12.7 mmHg from baseline to week 12; compared with a reduction of 18.1/10.2 mmHg with ramipril. The maximum BP reductions achieved with aliskiren were 60.0/34.0 mmHg (from a baseline of 172.7/107.3 mmHg). Aliskiren was noninferior (P < 0.0001) to ramipril for SBP reduction with nonsignificant superiority (P = 0.052), and superior (P = 0.043) to ramipril for DBP reduction. The proportion of patients who achieved BP control (<140/90 mmHg) after 12 weeks of monotherapy was larger with aliskiren (34/88, 38.6%) than with ramipril (22/87, 25.3%; P = 0.038). In this post hoc analysis, 12 weeks of monotherapy with aliskiren 150-300 mg provided effective mean BP reductions (22/13 mmHg) and was superior to ramipril 5-10 mg in controlling BP in patients with stage 2 systolic hypertension.

Effect of the direct Renin inhibitor aliskiren, the Angiotensin receptor blocker losartan, or both on left ventricular mass in patients with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy.

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy, a marker of cardiac end-organ damage, is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system may reduce LV mass to a greater extent than other antihypertensive agents. We compared the effect of aliskiren, the first orally active direct renin inhibitor, the angiotensin-receptor blocker losartan, and their combination on the reduction of LV mass in hypertensive patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: We randomized 465 patients with hypertension, increased ventricular wall thickness, and body mass index >25 kg/m(2) to receive aliskiren 300 mg, losartan 100 mg, or their combination daily for 9 months. Patients were treated to standard blood pressure targets with add-on therapy, excluding other inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system and beta-blockers. Patients underwent cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging for assessment of LV mass at baseline and at study completion. The primary objective was to compare change in LV mass index from baseline to follow-up in the combination and losartan arms; the secondary objective was to determine whether aliskiren was noninferior to losartan in reducing LV mass index from baseline to follow-up. Systolic and diastolic blood pressures were reduced similarly in all treatment groups (6.5+/-14.9/3.8+/-10.1 mm Hg in the aliskiren group; 5.5+/-15.6/3.7+/-10.7 mm Hg in the losartan group; 6.6+/-16.6/4.6+/-10.5 mm Hg in the combination arm; P<0.0001 within groups, P=0.81 between groups). LV mass index was reduced significantly from baseline in all treatment groups (4.9-, 4.8-, and 5.8 g/m(2) reductions in the aliskiren, losartan, and combination arms, respectively; P<0.0001 for all treatment groups). The reduction in LV mass index in the combination group was not significantly different from that with losartan alone (P=0.52). Aliskiren was as effective as losartan in reducing LV mass index (P<0.0001 for noninferiority). Safety and tolerability were similar across all treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Aliskiren was as effective as losartan in promoting LV mass regression. Reduction in LV mass with the combination of aliskiren plus losartan was not significantly different from that with losartan monotherapy, independent of blood pressure lowering. These findings suggest that aliskiren was as effective as an angiotensin receptor blocker in attenuating this measure of myocardial end-organ damage in hypertensive patients with LV hypertrophy.